Yes. When I did it I started thinking that it would be better to have
another variant "Aramaic, Official", since there is nothing that files
under Aramaic and it may be difficult to find. But I guess supplying this
inverted form is not something we usually do.
Rebecca
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Peter Constable wrote:
> I see that LOC has updated the content on their site for 639-2. Thanks very much.
>
> Peter Constable
> Program Manager * Font Technologies
>
> [cid:[log in to unmask]]<http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/results.aspx?FromCP=Y&JobCategoryCodeID=&JobLocationCodeID=&JobProductCodeID=&JobTitleCodeID=&Divisions=&TargetLevels=&Keywords=itljobs%20&JobCode=&ManagerAlias=&Interval=50>
>
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 9:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
>
> I think we had agreement on various changes but it seems to me that only a couple of them got acted upon: there was a ballot for a name change for 'arc', and SIL has proposed addition of 'jpa' for "Jewish Palistinian Aramaic" (change request 2006-105). These actions appear to be pending:
>
> [oar] Old Aramaic (639-3)
> Part 3: Change name to add dates: Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE); additional name: Ancient Aramaic (up to 700 BCE)
> [arc] Aramaic (639-2 and 639-3)
> Part 2: Change names per completed ballot. (Change completed in 639-3.)
>
> [avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
> Part 3: add new entry
>
> [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (639-3)
> Part 3: change name back to earlier draft designation and add dates: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
>
> Can we please get these actions completed.
>
>
> Thanks
> Peter
>
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Joan Spanne
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:42 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
>
>
> The necessary forms for the other proposed changes have now been completed and all will be posted by tomorrow for review and comment.
>
> -Joan
> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
>
> 04/11/2007 11:59 AM
> Please respond to
> ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> To
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
> Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As you all see, Havard has issued a ballot for the name change to [arc] and is assuming that the other changes, which affected only 639-3, do not require a ballot. If anyone disagrees with the latter assumption, please say so. Otherwise, I'd expect Joan to proceed with those changes ASAP so that we can bring this set of issues to closure.
>
>
> Thanks.
> Peter
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
>
> Yes, we have in the past processed requests involving name changes. And
> this one affects the scope, so is even more necessary. We are
> investigating with our users as to whether we may wish to define any of
> the other items in 639-2.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, [iso-8859-1] Håvard Hjulstad wrote:
> >
> > The only thing that affects ISO 639-2, as far as I can see, is
> >
> > [arc] Aramaic (639-2 and 639-3)
> > Part 2 and Part 3: Change name to Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE);
> > additional name: Imperial Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE)
> > change French name(s) as needed
> >
> > None of the other items have been proposed for 639-2. If LoC thinks
> > that we need a ballot for that, so be it. I shall be happy to prepare
> > one. (But in 5 minutes I leave for a meeting and then for a week of
> > vacation, so nothing will be done by me until about 10 April.)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Håvard
> >
> > --------------------
> > Håvard Hjulstad
> > Standard Norge / Standards Norway
> > [log in to unmask]
> > --------------------
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milicent K Wewerka
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:49 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> >
> > Actually I think a ballot should be requested and processed. This is a major change in terms of 639-2 as it affects the MARC standard.
> >
> > Milicent Wewerka
> >
> > >>> Håvard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]> 03/28/07 7:05 AM >>>
> > Peter & Joan (and all),
> >
> > Hoping that any JAC member that would have a problem with this, I would
> > say:
> > - no ballot needed;
> > - go ahead as suggested.
> >
> > Håvard
> >
> > --------------------
> > Håvard Hjulstad
> > Standard Norge / Standards Norway
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > --------------------
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Peter Constable
> > Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 8:14 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: RESPONSE REQUESTED: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can
> > settle this now
> >
> >
> >
> > Havard: Do you think we need ballots to process new entries or name
> > changes for Aramaic varieties mentioned in Joan's mail, below?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Peter Constable
> > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:11 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Milicent & Joan, for comments. My immediate concern is to get
> > closure on the issues. There's just a handful more to introduce, but I
> > don't want to open new issues while we still have some that have been
> > open for weeks now and need closure.
> >
> >
> >
> > Both Joan & Millicent are saying that this committee needs to process
> > these Aramaic additions, and there are name adjustments to be made as
> > well. Havard, do you think you should create ballots for these?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Joan Spanne
> > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:05 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Milicent with regard to code elements that either clearly
> > affect the denotation or reference information of a Part 2 code element,
> > or might border on having an affect. The Aramaic languages with
> > proposals for Part 3 come under that second grouping as being involved
> > in the clarification of intended meaning for code elements in Part 2.
> > Some of them may also be of interest for including in Part 2, which is
> > also justification for inviting JAC consideration.
> >
> > There are dozens of new code requests in Part 3 that I would say have
> > no immediate impact on Part 2, and I had not planned on bringing them to
> > the JAC, unless you all state otherwise now. One other motivation for
> > requesting JAC consideration of Part 3 change requests is if there is
> > division regard in expressed public opinion on a change request.
> >
> > -Joan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Milicent K Wewerka <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > 03/15/2007 02:45 PM
> >
> > Please respond to
> > ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > To
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > cc
> >
> >
> > Subject
> >
> > Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it would be wise to include 639-3 changes or additions in a
> > process that includes in JAC. Decisions on 639-3 have an impact on
> > 639-2 certainly in terms of scope of the definition of the languages.
> >
> > Milicent Wewerka
> > Library of Congress
> >
> > >>> Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> 03/15/07 3:06 PM >>>
> > None of the parts of ISO 639 * 1, 2 or 3 * actually specify any
> > process for additions or changes other than the following:
> >
> > - the request must be supported by a justification
> > - the JAC must provide a response to the RA within one month
> >
> > Each part does specify voting procedures, but doesn*t clearly state
> > what JAC actions require a vote.
> >
> > Perhaps you*re assuming SIL will independently decide about additions
> > to 639-3, while Joan is assuming the JAC will somehow be involved? (I
> > realize as editor for 639-3 one might expect I*d know what the process
> > is, but I just used existing text from parts 1/2.)
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
> > Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:53 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> >
> > New items in 639-3 should be processed according to the rules of
> > 639-3.
> > If any if these items should be considered for 639-2, that would need
> > to
> > be processed after 639-3 registration.
> >
> > Håvard
> >
> > --------------------
> > Håvard Hjulstad
> > Standard Norge / Standards Norway
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > --------------------
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Peter Constable
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:59 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> > Thanks.
> >
> > So, we need others to chime in on whether they agree with the general
> > plan. And we have some new entries for part 3 and possible part 2 to
> > consider * I don*t know how we need to process those. Havard?
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Joan Spanne
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:51 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> >
> >
> > A summary of actions needed to adopt:
> >
> > [oar] Old Aramaic (639-3)
> > Part 3: Change name to add dates: Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE);
> > additional name: Ancient Aramaic (up to 700 BCE)
> > [include dates in all name forms?]
> > Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2
> >
> >
> > [arc] Aramaic (639-2 and 639-3)
> > Part 2 and Part 3: Change name to Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE);
> > additional name: Imperial Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE)
> > change French name(s) as needed
> >
> >
> > A change request has been filed to propose a new code element in
> > 639-3:
> > [avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
> > Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2.
> > Considering the general lack of extant documents of this period, 639-2
> > may not have need of it.
> >
> >
> > [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (639-3)
> > Part 3: change name back to earlier draft designation (from
> > Ethnologue)
> > and add dates: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
> > Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2.
> >
> >
> > A change request has been filed to propose a new code element in
> > 639-3:
> > [jpa] Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
> > This is the variety of Aramaic found in the Targums of Onkelos and
> > Jonathan, as well as the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim.
> > Part 2: nothing unless it is proposed to be included in Part 2
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > 03/12/2007 11:46 AM
> > Please respond to
> > ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >
> > To
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > cc
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject
> >
> > Re: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This looks good to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Joan, can you summarize exactly what actions are needed to adopt?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> > [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:16 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Cc: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Fw: 639 issues: Aramaic - I think we can settle this now
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > After some research and a round of discussion on Aramaic with Anthony
> > Aristar, this is what we propose:
> >
> > > [oar] Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE); additional name: Ancient Aramaic
> > > [arc] Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE); additional name: Imperial
> > Aramaic
> > > PROPOSED code element: [avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
> > > [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE) CHANGE NAME BACK TO
> > ETHNOLOGUE DESIGNATION: Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
> > >
> > > (There are no identifiers available in [am-] or [ar-] ranges and
> > only
> > 4
> > > total available [m--]
> > > [adm] is available, but it seems likely that it would readily get
> > confused
> > > as [amd]--the latter being more mnemonic for Aramaic, Middle-- but
> > it
> > is
> > > already assigned.)
> > >In addition:
> > > PROPOSED code element: [jpa] Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (ca.
> > 200-1200
> > CE)
> > > to designate the Aramaic found in the Targums of Onkelos and
> > Jonathan,
> > > as well as the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim.
> >
> > The return of [tmr] to the specific designation of Jewish Babylonian
> > Aramaic is significant because to consider a single "Talmudic Aramaic"
> > really would be proposing a collection (which we do not want to do),
> > as
> > the Aramaic languages of the 4th period (as listed here) are
> > definitely
> > distinct languages and are well attested. Classical Syriac and
> > Classical
> > Mandaic are others in this bunch that have their own code elements
> > already (and are not affected by this proposal).
> >
> > Have a great week,
> >
> > Joan
> >
> > ----- Forwarded by Joan Spanne/IntlAdmin/WCT on 03/12/2007 10:01 AM
> > -----
> > Anthony Aristar <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > 03/09/2007 12:43 PM
> >
> >
> > To
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > cc
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject
> >
> > Re: 639 issues: Aramaic
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You are precisely accurate, Joan. Up to around 200 AD the varieties
> > of
> > Aramaic were similar enough at each time-period to be called dialects.
> > But then the divergence of dialects which diachronic change naturally
> > brings about, accompanied by the sharp political division between the
> > Roman Empire and the Parthian (and later Persion) Empires, started to
> > bring about such substantial changes that it becomes more reasonable
> > to
> > talk about distinct languages forming in different regions at the same
> > time. It shouldn't have a single code, unless this code is clearly a
> > collection.
> >
> > If the code-set is to be used in a scholarly fashion, keep the
> > Ethnologue designation Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and add at least one
> > more code for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, to designate the Aramaic
> > found in the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, as well as the
> > Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim, which is closely related to the
> > Onkelos/Jonathan dialect. Talmudic Aramaic is emphatically a
> > collection, and is not written in a single language: we require at
> > least two language codes here, one the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic
> > mentioned here, and the other the Aramaic found in the Babylonian
> > Talmud. And the idea that the Talmudic material of the early period is
> > somehow the "same" as the material from almost a 1000 years later...
> >
> > This is a very strange process, isn't it?
> >
> > Anthony
> >
> > Quoting [log in to unmask]:
> >
> > > Hi Anthony and Peter,
> > >
> > > I am trying to nail down the Aramaic situation for a concrete
> > proposal to
> > > the JAC. I have one remaining problem, which has not really come up
> > > explicitly yet, but I am concerned it will eventually.
> > >
> > > In a simple world, I would propose:
> > > [oar] Old Aramaic (up to 700 BCE); additional name: Ancient Aramaic
> > > [arc] Official Aramaic (700 - 300 BCE); additional name: Imperial
> > Aramaic
> > > PROPOSED code element: [avm] Middle Aramaic (300 BCE - ca. 200 CE)
> > > [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
> > >
> > > (There are no identifiers available in [am-] or [ar-] ranges and
> > only
> > 4
> > > total available [m--]
> > > [adm] is available, but it seems likely that it would readily get
> > confused
> > > as [amd]--the latter being more mnemonic for Aramaic, Middle-- which
> > is
> > > already assigned.)
> > >
> > > However, with my gift for making simple things complex, I am
> > bothered
> > by
> > > the last entry:
> > > [tmr] Talmudic Aramaic (ca. 200-1200 CE)
> > > which in the Ethnologue is called Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.
> > >
> > > My limited research tells me that this 4th period in the history of
> > the
> > > Aramaic languages is not as uniform as the 1st and 2nd (nor is
> > Middle
> > > Aramaic, but it has far less extant material and therefore no
> > settled
> > > designations). The 4th period may be divided between Eastern and
> > Western
> > > groups. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (the Ethnologue designation of
> > [tmr]) is
> > > a member of the Eastern group. Now we are proposing that [tmr]
> > encompasses
> > > more than that variety. The reason this bothers me is that [syc]
> > Classical
> > > Syriac and [myz] Classical Mandaic are the other two members of this
> > > Eastern Group, but they both still have their own identifiers. So
> > also
> > > does Samaritan Aramaic of the Western group.
> > >
> > > I think it would be more sensible to retain the Ethnologue
> > designation
> > > Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and possibly add appropriate code elements
> > other
> > > members of the Western group (Jewish Palestinian Aramaic and
> > > Syro-Palestinian Christian Aramaic), if warranted.
> > >
> > > As it is in the simple proposal, Talmudic Aramaic looks more like a
> > > collection to me. You know this topic far better than I, Anthony. Am
> > I off
> > > base with my concern?
> > >
> > > -Joan
> >
> >
> >
> > **************************************
> > Anthony Aristar, Director, Institute for Language Information &
> > Technology
> > Professor of Linguistics
> > Moderator, LINGUIST Principal Investigator, EMELD
> > Project
> > Linguistics Program
> > Dept. of English [log in to unmask]
> > Eastern Michigan University 2000 Huron River Dr, Suite 104
> > Ypsilanti, MI 48197
> > U.S.A.
> >
> > URL: http://linguistlist.org/aristar/
> > **************************************
> >
>
|